In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584

Background

On March 15, 2016 (Ohio primary election day), an anonymous call to a federal district court clerk reported a fatal accident that allegedly blocked I-275 and prevented voters from reaching polls before the 7:30 p.m. closing time.
A district judge, reached by phone while away from the courthouse, orally authorized a clerk to enter an order extending polling in four counties (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren) to 8:30 p.m.; a written order followed.
No named plaintiff or John Doe appeared on the district-court docket; the case was captioned “IN RE: 2016 Primary Election.”
State and county election officials scrambled to comply; some polling places reopened and provisional ballots were cast and later counted.
The Secretary of State and county boards timely appealed, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction and arguing mootness; the Sixth Circuit appointed counsel to defend the order as amicus curiae.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing: Did the district court have jurisdiction to enter relief absent any named plaintiff?	The anonymous caller sought emergency relief to protect voters; the court could act to preserve voting rights.	No plaintiff was ever identified; without a named or adequately described John Doe claimant there was no Article III case or controversy.	Vacated and remanded for dismissal: no subject-matter jurisdiction because there was no plaintiff with standing.
Mootness / capable of repetition yet evading review: Is the appeal moot given the election ended?	The matter is moot; provisional ballots were counted, results certified, and no ongoing injury exists.	Election-order challenges often evade review; similar anonymous calls/events could recur and thus the issue may be capable of repetition.	Majority declined to resolve on mootness (addressed standing first); found mootness analysis uncertain given the anonymous record but recognized potential evading-review concerns.
Whether appellate court may correct district court’s error in entertaining the suit	N/A (appellee defended order through appointed counsel).	Appellate court may review jurisdictional defects to correct lower-court error.	Appellate court has authority to review and correct lack of jurisdiction; exercised that authority to decide standing before merits.
Discretion to choose sequencing of jurisdictional issues (standing vs mootness)	N/A	Court may choose the order of jurisdictional questions; may decide the easier threshold issue first.	Court exercised discretion to decide standing (easier) before mootness.

Key Cases Cited

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (appellate jurisdiction to correct district court’s error in entertaining a suit)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable and redressable)
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (no jurisdiction without a plaintiff presenting a case or controversy)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (district and appellate courts may sequence jurisdictional questions and choose the order of resolving them)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (mootness exception doctrine: capable of repetition yet evading review)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing must exist at outset; courts should not leave false impressions of Article III standing)
Platt v. Bd. of Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 769 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2014) (election challenges often evade review)
Libertarian Party of Mich. v. Johnson, 714 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2013) (discussing evading-review relaxation in election cases)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution against judicial changes to election procedures close to voting)